Gurram Shanker vs. State Of Telangana

Facts

Two criminal petitions were filed by Gurram Shanker (Accused No. 4) and Ammaram Vinod (Accused No. 7) seeking anticipatory bail. The petitions relate to Crime No. 55 of 2025, registered at EOW Team-VI, CCS DD, Hyderabad. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, along with other accused, induced the de-facto complainant by introducing Accused No. 1 as an SBI Branch Manager and promising auction plots and gold at better prices. They allegedly collected Rs. 6,42,78,000/- by submitting fake documents, including SBI challans, demand drafts, and letters purportedly from government departments and the GST Department. The petitioners are accused of cheating and threatening the complainant. The investigation is ongoing, and Accused No. 1 has been enlarged on bail.

Held

The Court dismissed the criminal petitions for anticipatory bail. Regarding the issue of whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail, the Court found that the complaint, though not initially naming the petitioners, later revealed specific allegations that they, along with other accused, conspired to extort over Rs. 20 crores from victims by providing auctioned properties and gold using fake documents. The Court noted that Accused No. 1 transferred Rs. 75 lakhs to petitioner/A4 and other amounts to petitioner/A7. The Court rejected the argument that the pending Insolvency Petition barred criminal proceedings, stating that the truth would emerge during the investigation. The Court also held that the grant of regular bail to Accused No. 1 did not automatically entitle the petitioners to anticipatory bail. Considering the gravity of the offense and the ongoing investigation, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the allegations of cheating and the submission of fake documents, including those purportedly from the GST Department? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioners have been falsely implicated based solely on the alleged confession statement of Accused No. 1. - The de-facto complainant's complaint lacks specific allegations against the petitioners. - The petitioners did not receive any amount, nor did they forge or execute any documents. - Accused No. 1 filed an Insolvency Petition (I.P. No. 13 of 2025) prior to the complaint, stating he borrowed money from the petitioners and others, suggesting civil dispute rather than criminal intent. - The implication is based only on Accused No. 1's confession, which is insufficient without other material evidence. - The petitioners have no criminal antecedents and are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Respondent's (State) Arguments: - The petitioners committed a grave offense and, at the instance of Accused No. 1, received a huge amount of Rs. 20 crores from victims. - They colluded with Accused No. 1 to cheat victims by providing auctioned properties and gold using fake documents. - Accused No. 1 transferred Rs. 75,00,000/- to petitioner/A4, which belongs to the victims. - Granting anticipatory bail would allow them to interfere with the investigation and influence witnesses. - The investigation is still in progress.